Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

It gets worse

Application of this policy is becoming even more problematic. From a discussion on my talk page, it seems that users with non-latin characters are having their user talk pages deleted even after being forced to change name because they are designated as "temporary Wikipedians" purely on the basis of not having the right sort of characters in their original name. This seems completely unjusitfiable to me. Angela. 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A redirect would seem the right thing to do here. Note that displaying latin characters in the signature is not enough, as one person suggested, because the edit history of pages displays the username, and that needs to be readable by all. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Usernames_containing_non-Latin_characters. Carcharoth 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, what is this temporary wikipedian category and who keeps applying it to pages? That really isn't neccessary. pschemp | talk 05:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The category is mainly for deleting the user pages of blocked vandal accounts after a certain period of time, but is also used for IP user pages that have unnecessary things created on them and maybe for other things too. It is part of Template:Indefblocked and a few other templates. The clearest case where this is useful is for defamatory user names that show up in Web searches, but is also relevant for simply not having extraneous results show up for normal Web searches, not "airing our dirty laundry", and cleaning up. (e.g. a search for -- Wikipedia firefox --, a probably common search considering the number of people using Google, used to come up with several ridiculous internal user page results related to User:FireFox and vandal-produced obscenities). —Centrx→talk • 06:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User name on places

Is there a policy on banning users from having a username after a name of a place? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that we don't allow usernames that are the exact names of countries, ie, User:Sweden because no one can presume to be editing for an entire country. So far, other placename are not problematic unless the user asserts that they are editing on behalf of that place. An example of what you are talking about would be helpful though. pschemp | talk 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Madhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. There was a user:TAIWAN who was blocked once before. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change to language of "Trademarked names"

Regarding the improper use of trademarked sports team names, I would like to remove the following parenthetical language: "whether it's whole or just the team". What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that the user name "Eagles" is just as unacceptable as the name "Philadelphia Eagles"? I would hope not. Obviously, we should prohibit the use of trademarked names, but this particular language is ambiguous and unnecessary. -- Satori Son 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since I see the discussion has moved on, and there being no objections, I have removed this confusing language. -- Satori Son 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good start. Why not remove the whole rule? It sounds like a big non-issue. 192.75.48.150 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

names

Is it clear enough that the dos & donts apply to both registered usernames and names used in signatures? Deizio talk 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The section WP:U#Signatures states "In general, the same rules apply for signatures as for usernames." Maybe we should remove the "In general..." qualifier; I can't think of any exception to the guideline for signatures. -- Satori Son 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we could safely tighten that up. Either remove "in general" or try "unless specified otherwise,..." Deizio talk 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also added the following line to the "Signatures" paragraph - "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Imho this section seems a lot tighter now Deizio talk 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your changes here. Personally, I would like the "signature to resemble to some degree the username" to be mandatory, but I realize there is not yet an established consensus for such a guideline, so your wording is apt. -- Satori Son 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Paul Murray" vs. "Paul.Murray"

There's an established editor User:Pmurray bigpond.com to whom I suggested a namechange, but it failed because User:Paul.Murray was already occupied (an indef blocked vandal account with one edit). User:Paul Murray is still free though. Trying to avoid later trouble - this would be okay with the "can be confused with other contributors" rule? (I refuse to recognize Paul.Murray as "contributor".) Femto 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As I noted on the talk page of WP:CHU, all he needs to do is place a request there and we will change it for him. Essjay (Talk) 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have carried out the user's request today. Redux 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering since when did the new restriction causing this go into place? Uninsureddriver 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-latin characters and Unified Login

older detailed disscusion on this issue is above at Wikipedia talk:Username #Protest--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For those of you not familiar with the upcoming "unified login" event, once this occurs, en.wp will be host to a plethora of Non-Latin Character names. This policy on non-Latin characters will therefore be a contradiction and should be removed. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For more information about Unifed Login, see m:Single login. Bastiq▼e ^demandez

That's blackmail. Waaah! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So for someone like me who cannot see foreign scripts (they just show as boxes), how will I know the difference between a name of 5 boxes, and a different name of 5 boxes? Maybe this has been discussed before. --Ali'i 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Errrrm, just download a good browser ? :) guillom 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"A good browser" can't do jack without fonts. Microsoft Windows does not come preinstalled with a set of fonts that covers the entire Unicode space. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice, but what if I happen to do most of my editing while at a public library? Or other public computer? I can't download stuff onto it. So I am stuck with boxes where foreign characters should be. --Ali'i 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas's opinion

I am really not supportive of any kind of policy like this. Anglo-centric? Isn't English itself Anglo-centric? English is an international language, while the others are not. As for the obvious problems this would cause, I am reiterating below from the policy page –

Names with non-Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.

Questions everybody should ask themselves

• Can you imagine the problem caused to administrators who want to block vandals and trolls, when their browsers do not support non-latin characters?
• Do you realise the extent of the problem of impersonation would be? Are you competent enough to distinguish between those difficult Chinese, Japanese characters? Can you understand the difference between those squiggly things that look all the same in languages like हिन्दी and العربية?
• I cannot comprehend why people who are genuinely interested in contributing to the encyclopedia would make a fuss about the issue.
• If this is an English encyclopedia, why do you give a stuff about other languages, unless you are contributing to language-related articles?
• What do you do when you need to find a particular user's talk page? Search your contributions or try to find their contributions?
• For your information, India has over 80 languages and over 6000 dialects, and mind you, fonts for a majority are available. Are you sure you want to open the pandora's box?
• For your information, I am Indian, so please assume that I do not have any kind of biases against non-English speakers and users.
  

Yours truly,
— Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is coming one way or another. As soon as single user login is implemented, anyone coming here to do transwiki links will be doing so under their home-wiki username; blocking these accounts would obviously be unreasonable. What I would suggest is that we encourage users from other language projects who intend to be editing content and participating in discussions on en: to use latin script for their signature, and to create a doppelganger account and a redirect to their userpage at the name used in their signature. --Robth^Talk 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely reasonable till it is restricted for those who are coming for transwiki work. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't have any effect on people who do not sign their names. If they are only making edits to articles, the article history could just be filled with foreign characters... I don't care about being able to tell them apart much, but the whole boxes/??? thing is more of a concern. --Ali'i 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you see to be the problem? Even if you have two editors in a history with the same number of boxes when you hover your cursor on the link and html is displayed you can see if they are the same editor or not. The html will be unique no matter what script is used. I am not sure what you cannot do or know because the username is indecipherable to you.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a requirement that the custom signature be readable, I believe custom signatures(all preferences) will be different for each wiki? This won't solve all problems, but may minimize the effects. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we better start writing some of these articles in languages other than English to avoid the anglo-centric accusation. The policy as I understand it is based on two issues firstly that on many browsers these characters don't render properly (happens on at least one of the computers I use) coming out as little boxes or ? or some such. In article histories this is worse than meaningless. And secondly that the use of abusive names or terms can go unchecked for a long while. The former is not easily solveable and why we encourage users to use such characters in their signature where usually hovering over the link shows the underlying username and the usernames show up properly in page histories. (Though in a recent RFA there were complaints that the signature was too different from the username...). The second is also not easily soluble and single login with local blocking, may indeed make it a real issue. Personally I don't see it as unreasonable to ask people to pick a name which is legible and renders well in peoples browsers. On the question of your proposal, the way things normally seem to work is we discuss and then take action, not take action then discuss --pgk 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a little snipy, but I take "Anglo-centrism" accusations to be rather snipy themselves. It's too bad that we're being Anglo-centric on the English Wikipedia. If I'm going to go create a username on Arabic Wikipedia, I won't be using characters people don't recognize. And they shouldn't do so here either. And, for that matter, to address the "get a better browser" argument (which is simply awful anyway, as many people like myself have an older computer which won't recognize any characters becuase it's not in the OS): actually, many characters are unreadable to the English reading eye anyway. I'm sorry, I can't read left-from-right in Japanese, and I don't think I should have to learn characters in Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Cyrillic, and Chinese just to be able to decipher a username on Wikipedia so that someone can have the "right" to a non-readable username. There are more important things in life than making a point about Anglo-centrism. If you use English Wikipedia, use a username that can be read by English-readers. Period. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a lot in common. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where are you reading Anglocentric accusations on this thread? Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he was redirected from the WP:AN page. – [1]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess from your comment "not only is blocking users solely for use of non-Latin characters overly anglo-centric" on WP:AN --pgk 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note we are talking about people who create user 'outside of en.WP and are granted universal access to all Wikimedia wikis under that username through single user login.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This has not been implemented yet. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. The wholesale blocking of users simply because of non-Latin characters needs to stop, now. This should be a suggestion, but not a policy. Furthermore, non-Latin usernames will be coming as a result of Unified login. So as a suggestion, it's fine, but as a policy, it's completely out of line. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the tone of "..needs to stop, now", less demands more meaningful dialog may help. The policy has a rationale perhaps you could try responding why the rationale is false/outdated etc. The problems with non-rendering still occurs, the problem that the names maybe absolutely out of line, the equivelant of say "CumGuzzler" yet those not knowing the language are ignorant of that. With single login the name itself maybe created on another wiki and blocked there for being inappropriate, whilst we happily let it edit here due to the locality of blocking... To put some perspective on this we have blocked about 9 of these since 14th December (6 days) (Filtering the block log for a block comment containing "user" somewhere and then a manual look through, so any errors in this figure are mine). --pgk 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking everything I say. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how am I attacking everything you say? I have pointed out a turn of phrase I find either demanding or patronising, and I have pointed out why I consider the current rationale to still hold. If you didn't want people to address what you are saying then I guess you shouldn't have bothered stating a "disucssion" --pgk 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have notified Yamaguchi先生 regarding this discussion, as he has been previously involved in a dispute with other admins. Guess how much time it took for me to search for his user talk page? Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At a technical level, we (or rather the developers) could fix the blocking/telling other users apart issue, by having such characters display differently on en in special pages like histories and suchforth, possibly with the unicode points for such characters instead of the actual ones. This could be an option. This doesn't solve the problem of signatures, mind. Morwen - Talk 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw my opinion into the ring ... I really don't want to have to start dealing with usernames in dozens of languages, most of whose fonts are not supported by default on most of the browsers/OS installations out there. I don't know if there's some way to have SUL names be displayed in transliterated English on here, but it really doesn't make sense to have them all displayed as potentially unreadable characters. --Cyde Weys 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This user m:Requests for permissions#User:.E3.81.A3 was blocked on en.wp for no other reason than having a single character Kanji name. When I used the term Anglo-centric earlier, I meant, "Without regard of the other projects." The English wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with this policy. Other active Latin script wikipedias like French and German do quite well without it, and include users that use non-latin scripts. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cary, Cary, Cary; I thought you knew how much affinity GNAA has with en.wiki? There is a huge difference between the userbase on this wiki and other wikis. There can be no comparison. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to type that name in? or recognize it? Even if it didn't look like a box with some numbers in it, it would still be indecipherable to the English editors on the English Wikipedia. For the same reason, we do not allow User:♣⊗√∀x. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've considered blocks against non-English usernames to be reprehensibly anglo-centric since the very beginning, so I am glad to see some people having a change of heart. I'm not bothered however by asking people with non-latin names if they have a latin nickname/transliteration that might acceptable (or included in a sig, for example). Such things are helpful to us American idiots who can't read kanji, but I have never agreed that we should force people to only use latin alphabets. (Especially since we have been making exceptions for accented latin characters that are just as untypable on most keyboards as the foreign character sets.) Blocking people for using their real names, according to the way they naturally should be written, is like a color blind person demanding everyone else to never wear red. Except this is worse since the vast majority of wikipedians should be able access browsers/font packs capable of displaying that name with only a little effort. Dragons flight 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We also speedy delete non-English articles. Can you imagine? The English Wikipedia uses English! —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we also speedy-block people who are translating and transwiki-ing? (to english) ;-) Kim Bruning 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I think we need to explain things a little more. The facts are:

• for the moment, non latin accounts are blocked on sight.
• in the very future, SUL will merge all accounts from the same person into one single account.

What bastique and others, including me, ask is:

• blocking accounts in a different alphabet should not be the default behavior anywhere, neither on the english-language wikipedia nor on the japanese or russian ones.
• If people use their account to add interwikis sometimes, there should be no problem with them keeping their non latin username.
• If people are active on the project, we assume they know the language at least a little. Thus, we can ask them to use an alias (see Special:Preferences > signature) readable by the people on this project.

Thanks for your comments. guillom 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this. The one addition I would make is that people who are going to be editing actively should register a dummy account and create a redirecting userpage at the latin-character name used in their signature, thus resolving the issue of how to find their userpage through the search box. --Robth^Talk 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support. Only flagged interwiki slaves users should be considered for this. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guillom and Robth. DVD+ R/W 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Guillom and Robth. (PS: when blocking a non latin script account, please don't block the IP, as happened to me ;-) ) Kipmaster 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's approach

I think both sides have valid arguments. A non-latin username will indeed cause problems to people without the necessary files and Non-latin characters will look like '?' on computer without the necessary files.

However en.wikipedia cannot afford to ban non-latin characters if it is seeking a multi-cultural and lingual community. It is perfectly legitimate for an Arabic speaking person to have a username he/she can read. Users are not required to know English to contribute here. People can work on stuff like interwiki links without knowing any English.

On commons for instance people are not required to speak English but are recommended to do so. In deletion debates most of the discussion is voluntarily in English even though participants of such debates can discuss the matter in their native language.

I can have a Japaneses username and alter my signature so that it displays the romanised.

This rule isn't compatible with single user login

--Cat out 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use those symbols in your signatures, if you want to have some fun. You can't have the cake and eat it too! ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 18:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous fool's approach

Since we're already messing with it, history, recent changes, and all that, to add the (+123) stuff, make it so that a user number is displayed in the bracket. This makes it no worse than dealing with us anonymous fools. E.g.:

* (diff) (hist). Wikipedia talk:Username‎; 17:37 . (+186) .  дурак (#1283712|Talk|contribs) (→Non-latin characters and Unified Login)

192.75.48.150 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Unusual, but innovative. In a case of impersonation, however; we would not be expecting administrators to remember each other's numbers, would we? Maybe change it to something unique like instead of the number we have something in English (like their En.wiki usernames/transliteration of their usernames in English), implemented universally. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this approach would work out the best. If someone's computer can not understand the username, they can always see the id number to block. Naconkantari 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This type of problem illustrates why, IMHO, this is not a good idea: [2]. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that illustrate the problem? Bastiq▼e ^demandez 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the English text the person used, there was no way to distinguish between vandalism and legitimate edits, just as there is no way to distinguish whether the name means "FUCK JIMBO" or whether it is just a common name in Chinese? —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no shortage of Wikipedians that do read Chinese (especially watching articles like Beijing, I'm sure) and no particular rush to address such issues, anyway. If the troll really does use a language very few people can read, then he hasn't actually accomplished much. There is a difference between respecting people's right to use their own name, and saying that the encyclopedia itself is written in English. Dragons flight 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If the purpose of allowing these characters would be to welcome speakers of other languages, I should think they would not be welcomed very well by seeing unchecked inflammatory epithets written in the language. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can also write « que jimbo aille se faire foutre chez les grecs » with latin characters, but you don't understand it either :) guillom 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea too, it adds a way to distinguish people without adding anything restrictive (+combine with guillom's proposal above). And I guess it's very easy to implement. Kipmaster 09:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more further info

As brion has indicated, single unified login is going to happen. There is no changing that, and no amount of arguing, whining or crying is going to change it. So, we are going to be confronted with the creation of thousands of accounts with foreign usernames. So, there are some options:

1. Keep the existing policy. This means that users coming from, let's say, ruwiki, have their account created automatically, and then have it blocked and forced to create a new latinized global account. So much for "single, unified", huh? It is evident already on foundation-l that actions like those would cause a severe strain on interwiki relations.
2. Ditch the current policy.
3. Adjust it slightly, as Guilliom suggests.

Either way, saying, "I don't want to deal with this problem" is not an option. We have to deal with it before the feature is turned on, as accounts will be created automatically at that point. Hence, I've tagged the policy section as disputed. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly support Guilliom's suggestion. Maybe we can make use of those automatic transliteration tools someone mentioned on the mailing list so that people can automatically generate a localised signature for themselves. --bainer (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, automatic transliteration programs won't work with all languages, especially with trying to determine the context of certain characters. For example, determining which pronunciation to choose for certain Chinese characters, determining the difference between Hanyu and Romanji, dealing with heterograms, etc.. If we were to use such a program, it would require many many man-hours of work to put together enough context for it to function "most of the time." אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd, we are not whining or crying. We are in discussion. No one can impose anything without consensus on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually developers and the board can impose things. Single User Login is one such thing which will effectively import very many foriegn language users on this and every other project (many tens of thousands, if I had to guess), and make it so that when a user visits another wiki they automatically use the same account as on their home wiki. This has advantages for user tracking, ease of editting multiple wikis, and preference management. It also allows things like cross-wiki notification of talk page messages. Single User Login will happen. The question is how will en respond to the new accounts. Will we simply block every Japanese wikipedian whose name is written in kanji (and thus breaking any of the advantages of single user login), or will we find a more measured approach (such as asking for transliteration in sigs rather than requiring it in usernames). Dragons flight 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the discussion on the foundation mailing list can only be described as that. Brion Vibber, the Foundation's CTO, has indicated that is going to go ahead, in its current form, and that many details of it are not negotiable, including the fact that an account will have the same alias everywhere. No transliterations, no way to use alternate accounts, no nothing. This means that admins from the Japanese Wikipedia will have a local account created for them automatically, as soon as they enter the English Wikipedia while logged into their global accounts. There is actually no way to stop that from occuring. As Dragons flight indicates, the only thing that we can do is to decide how to treat our new visitors. Do we block them? I wouldn't. On the mailing list, A few users admins have already indicated their desire for the Japanese Wikipedia to block latin-script usernames if the English Wikipedia policy continues, and I am not confident that they meant that in jest. Please try to see the broader interwiki ramifications that continuing a policy that will become technically obsolete will bring. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So their reason for blocking would be revenge, without which they would allow latin usernames? —Centrx→talk • 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If some unlikely suggestions are adopted, yes. Cooler heads will probably prevail, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They do presently allow latin usernames. Dragons flight 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ral315's opinion

Moved from WP:AN. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What we could/should do:

1. Stop blocking non-latin; I agree that this goes too far. Now that brion's disallowed the mixing of different scripts, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
2. Create a page: Wikipedia:Font help for users and admins alike, explaining how to install all unicode scripts on their computers.
3. Have active editors with non-latin usernames create an alias with non-latin characters (perhaps a transliteration of their username, if possible), with a redirect from the latin name to their non-latin name. Have them sign with the latin name for simplicity.
4. Create a page of active editors with non-latin usernames, allowing users to go to this page and just click their username to get to their userpage (probably use {{userlinks}}).

Thoughts? More importantly, to language geeks, is it possible to easily install all scripts at once? Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• What about casual users? Should the readers and editors on Wikipedia be required to install additional software in order to identify other users on the English Wikipedia?
• Will these users be required to sign comments with their latin redirect names? How are the latin usernames going to be identifiable in page histories? If they are creating latin usernames, why can they not just use those instead of the non-latin ones?

—Centrx→talk • 09:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why should users who are starting on the English Wikipedia use non-Latin characters? With single-user logins, the home wiki can police the user names of their users, but the home wiki should be able to read the username. Will we end up with the bizarre situation of a username blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia because it is inflammatory or libellous, but allowed on the English Wikipedia where almost no one can read it, remember it, or type it in? That is, we would be allowing non-Latin characters in order to accommodate other wikis, but the wikis we would be accommodating would have blocked the very username we were supposed to be accommodating! —Centrx→talk • 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why can't a user on the Japanese Wikipedia, or better yet, an admin on the English Wikipedia that speak Japanese, tell us that the name is offensive? Besides, the reason someone who is starting out on the English Wikipedia gets a non-Latin username is because the software automatically generates it for them as soon as they visit it. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• The numbers of characters of various other languages would increase massively once SUL is implemented. Do you think the Japanese (or other language) administrators (which are in the absolute minority here) be there all the time to hand out blocks? — Nearly Headless Nick 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Ultimately (though not in the initial implementation probably), single user login will allow for unified log files so that you could check a single log and learn about any blocks issued against that account on any other Wikipedia. Obviously if an account had been blocked indefinately on their home wiki that should be a massive red flag and prompt further investigation. It also opens the possibility (in the even more distant future) that username blocks could be issued globally rather than applied to only a single account on a single wiki (though rules governing any global blocks would require significant discussion beforehand). Dragons flight 09:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from a newbie

I have just been reading a bunch of policy stuff, and have a question. This whole "once SUL is implemented, the non-Latin name blocks have to stop" doesn't seem to fit with history. Whatever happened to individual wikipedias determining their own policies? Jimbo Wales, the founder of WP, said that each wikipedia would have its own policies, etc. So why are a few people from other language wikipedias trying to change en.wiki policy to suit them? Maybe I am being harsh, but isn't blocking names that many editors can't make heads or tails of our own prerogative? Help a newbie out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably part of the idea is to help the process of flowing content outwards from en (and the other big editions, such as de) to other editions. Ultimately, if you see a lot of ????? and &^$(*$&^ people editing stuff, you have to do the obvious thing and look at the edit, not the person (which is a good general principle anyway). If you think the edit is dodgy, leave a message on their user page. They may not understand you, but if they do, they will probably do their best to reply. If you know their language, you can try and reply. If the edit is obviously wrong, revert it with an edit summary explaining why. Report vandalism to those who have the correct fonts installed and can tell the difference between ???? and ????, and they can investigate further and take it from there. There will probably also be lots of help for those wanting to get all the correct fonts installed. If you can't read the language, there will hopefully be a more readable universal attribute, like an ID number, so you can tell if two edits are by the same person. Carcharoth 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ID num. in Signatures?

Why not include the id number in signatures (or anywhere else usernames are used)? This would prevent any sort of impersonation on talk pages. -- Jmax- 08:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can always fake a number. 227287 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What about common sense?

Let's see: main reason for blocking offensive usernames are negative feelings of legitimate users they cause. How many users will feel uncomfortable when they see User:Jews did WTC? Many. And when they see its Russian equivalent User:Евреи взорвали ВТЦ? Not so many. When a Russian-speaking user will notice such username s/he'll report it to AIV with a brief explanation and malicious user will be blocked. If a user with offensive uswername remains unnoticed, his purpose is not accomplished. If he's noticed, he'll be blocked. If he starts making disruptive edits, he'll be blocked no matter of username. So, do non-latin usernaes still need to be blocked at sight? I don't think so. MaxSem 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the technical issues surrounding lay people who edit Wikipedia, without the knowledge of non-Latin scripts, not a hate campaign against non-Latin scripts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp's opinion

I am against having non-Latin scripts in the English wikipedia. Robth has the best solution of having doppelganger en accounts. His idea is simple and effective. This is what I have to add.

• Don't block the non-Latin account on sight.
• If the offending account makes content changes to the en wiki, then request him to create a doppelganger account, with a redirects from his old user and talk pages to his new ones.
• In the probability that he doesn't, then consider a block.

Why I seek a block

• Even though I may have the script, I have no clue as to what the character is even if I look it up in the Windows Character map. Take this اج for example. How does one effectively know which script it is from? Is is Farsi, or is it Arabic? (It's Farsi btw, taken from the Taj Mahal). Next thing: Which character? Look at the number of characters supported in Arabic. To the untrained eye, almost all appear similar.
• Next, when dealing with many scripts, there exists the problem with conjuncts. Look at this letter: क्ष It's a character in Devanagiri. It's a conjunct, which means that the character will only be displayed after typing in certain sequence of characters. Do most people know about this? No.
• No one has mentioned the problems associated with working with right to left languages. Try mixed character editing in the Hewbrew or Arabic to see what I mean.
• Some fonts will always be problematic. am:, got: and si: have been slightly problematic in the display of fonts.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not address the issue of incompatibility with SUL. If people must use a second account on certain Wikimedia wikis they will not have a unified login, user contributions, nor talk page notice.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we could ask the devs to link two accounts together. I'm sure it would be child's play as compared to the SUL code. Then submit a request on the lines CHU, and problem solved! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is actually implemented, I will stop objecting.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC) I mean if this is actually announced as part of the SUL implementation. I don't mean that I need to see it go live. Sorry for the poor wording.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Brion has indicated previously that he will *NOT* allow linked accounts as part of SUL, at least in this iteration. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415's opinion

I suggest that we continue to block usernames containing non-Latin characters on sight. This is the English encyclopedia, not the Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or Siberian equivalent. Why should we allow usernames that make collaboration and actions with that user hard, if not impossible? As for an above argument that users could have an account name they could understand, don't we have to understand it too? Just because a user does not know English and is adding interwiki links to other Wikipedias, that does not mean they can't have an English username. Feedback? Yuser31415 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've been saying, rehashed in a few words. Amen. Patstuart^talk·edits 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Universally recognised attribute

The best idea I've seen so far is this: there needs to be, attached to each account, a universally recognised attribute that can be recognised by any user from any language in the world, and which displays in all fonts and operating systems. This would avoid the problems of being unable to distinguish between different peopole in edit histories (the "????" vs "????" issue) and would enable people to refer to an account by this attribute (eg. editor 7643924 instead of editor ????). See this post on the wikien-l mailing list. I don't post to or subscribe to that list, but can someone please pass this on. I will also post this to Brion Vibber's user page.

As for what the universally-recongnisable attribute should be, I would tentatively suggest the Latin numeric script (ie. we all get a unique ID number). Is that universally-enough recognised and displayed worldwide in different languages and systems?

More generally, in the above discussions, people seem to confuse two separate issues: that of people being able to read the script (a problem of not knowing the alphabet or language), and that of people's computers being unable to display the script. A universal attribute that is not a username possibly solves all this. Carcharoth 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Two more relevant mailing list posts on this issue: [3] and [4]. Carcharoth 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

svn:trunk/extensions/CentralAuth/central-auth.sql has the relevant database specification. It will include a global database ID number, so it could be exposed, if developers authorize. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore

At the risk of BEANS, we can distinguish between allowing a non-latin manual account creation and an automatic one from a brother wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59 21 December 2006 (GMT).

OMG

Talk about unintended consequences.

So because of the en policy, this user had to go to umpteen different wikis. That's just... braindead. He shouldn't need to do that. In fact, can we already make an exception for this guy? [5]

Kim Bruning 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But just to switch to the 'other side' (of course we are all on the same side) and play devil's advocate, might I just ask you what "this guy's" name is? Can you type out his name for me? What shall we call him other than "this guy"? Are you aware that when referring to "this guy" you will have to use links and vague handwaving pointing instead of name? I realise that is actually rare to need to refer to people by name (most of the time Wikipedians are talking about content, not the editors, at least we should be), but when we do need to say "look at what that guy's doing", it is nice to be able to refer to them by name. Hang on. What if I copy and paste: っ. Oh. It works. Right, instead of referring to "this guy", we can call him (or her) by name. I agree that っ shouldn't have to change his/her name. What does っ mean, anyway? (I guess this whole SUL thing will be a steep learning curve for en editors). Carcharoth 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See:っ of course. --Kim Bruning 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) so much for en.wikipedia only having articles on english subjects :-P

D'oh! Carcharoth 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've yet to see one good argument for not allowing nonlatin names. I've seen some arguments which seem to miss the point. For example people say what about if the name is offensive? This is of course silly since you can do this with latin character names easily. For example, I could call myself "puki mak" which is an offensive phrase in Malay. Other arguments like impersonating people doesn't hold water either. Similarly, someone could be impersonating someone in the Malay or French or whatever wiki that uses latin characters. Or even a real person not know much outside a country Nil Einne 10:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've heard way too much controversy about this lately, and at any rate there's the unified login coming up. I've stricken this part of the policy, pending further discussion. >Radiant< 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy alone is not a valid reason to remove the text. There appears to be fairly reasonable consensus in the enwiki community that at least the recommendation to tranliterate names should remain. Furthermore, the harm caused by this policy has not been quantified.. it's only being attacked through speculation. On the flip side, it's easy to demonstrate that most non-ascii names are intended for vandalism [6].

I agree that this is a difficult set of issues and that we should solve it, but simply removing a consensus recommendation is not a solution. Instead, perhaps, we should only make such demands for users who are not active on other projects, require that they speak the language whos script they are using, and suggest that they at least transliterate their name in their sig? I'm not sure... at least it's some ideas worth discussing. --Gmaxwell 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with Radiant that the discussion here, on wikien-l and on foundation-l demonstrates a lack of consensus with regards to generically blocking names that appear in foreign scripts. I don't object to recommendations about the virtues of transliteration, etc., but such recommendations would belong higher up the page (in the general discussion of choosing a username), rather than in the section on inappropriate usernames. Dragons flight 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The text as written is somewhat interesting, because it sounds like a recommendation but it's in the section on prohibitions. I think there is one very important factor to consider: We are not generically blocking names that appear in foreign scripts... at least to whatever extent we are doing so, we're doing a poor job: There are over 400,000 accounts enwiki which contain non-ascii characters but only 3,394 block log blocking entries which refer to an account with a non-ascii character. --Gmaxwell 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How many of those are used for editing? It's not a problem if someone who has an account only to read or use a watchlist but never edits to have an unreadable username, or if it simply a throwaway account that slipped through, because no one needs to communicate with it or refer to it and the username never shows up anywhere in page histories, etc. If the username starts editing though, it would be blocked. You may be able to find non-ASCII usernames in the total list of user accounts, but not in page histories. Also 400,000 seems quite high, are you sure this doesn't include some common recognizable character? One-eighth of all usernames having a non-ASCII username would seem to be unnatural even if we allowed non-latin characters were perfectly allowed; anyway, it is certainly not one-eighth of all contributors. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that the 400k number is in error. Although in most places the space charater is converted to an underscore, this is not the case for the user table. As a result I was erroniously counting space as a non-ascii character. 7,678 is the correct number. I provided a link to the list of blocked users, I'll now provide a list of all the non-blocked. --Gmaxwell 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The original formulation asked people to "Avoid non-Latin characters" but it intensity crept up to its current outright prohibition, perhaps we should take the text back to its original form and request admins execute good judgment in placing blocks? --Gmaxwell 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sure that is very comforting to the Japanese admin who was blocked within 15 minutes of registering here a few days ago. Some people definitely do treat it as block on sight, and some people do argue that doing so is "right". Can you say anything about whether this has been used more recently? The earliest version of the section dates to March. If it is intended as a recommendation, I think it is clearly misplaced. Dragons flight 21:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This should minimally be toned down a bit, to encourage people to "avoid" these names but not encourage blocking on sight. JYolkowski // talk 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's fine to discourage people from non-Latin usernames. It's not fine to block non-Latin usernames at sight. Some people have been doing the latter, and the results were unpleasant. >Radiant< 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Please also see my commments above why non-latin based scripts should not be used. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Different accounts and sockpuppetry

At the moment, the same person can run different accounts on a Wikipedia edition (with various caveats) and not have to say that they are running these different accounts (see WP:SOCK), though the actual practice of sockpuppetry is discouraged because of the potential for abuse, and it is recommended that the accounts be openly declared. If someone sets up different accounts at different Wikipedias in the forthcoming age of SUL, will the same considerations apply, and will separate accounts on different Wikipedia editions run by the same person be considered sockpuppets in the same way that accounts on a particular Wikipedia edition are? Carcharoth 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that what is being referred to here is the use of nom-de-plumes (incorrect to allow for links) - ie legitimate use of more than one name in different contexts - as with Jean Plaidy and "associates" - rather than conventional sockpuppetry. Could the debate be cast in terms of noms-de-plume rather than sockpuppets.

Jackiespeel 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

sexual preference -> sexual orientation

This is probably a really minor point, but I changed "sexual preference" -> "sexual orientation" under the inappropriate usernames section. "Orientation" is in more common usage and is less objectionable to some folks. If you disagree with the change, revert me or discuss it here. Peace, delldot | talk 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable change. -- Satori Son 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for script policy

Now, there's been plenty of heat here and on the Foundation mailing list, some intemperate actions and some quite outrageous accusations on this topic, but I think it's not impossible to have some sensible ideas that extend beyond signatures and take into account RC lists and the like.

How about All users whose usernames are in a non-Latin script must already have edits with that username on their home wiki.

This would take into account the changes SUL will bring while also stopping people registering nonsense usernames in foreign scripts for the purposes of vandalism. Admittedly it won't deal with all my concerns, but I think it's a reasonable compromise.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How can one check this? There are 700+ wikis, and visiting them all to check if this user exists is virtually impossible. MaxSem 12:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason this debate is happening is the impending introduction of single user login (SUL), which will involve every user having one login for all Wikimedia wikis (i.e. all languages and all projects). This should therefore be easy to check. In the meantime, it's trivial to demand that a user points to an account on another wiki and does an edit on that wiki to prove the two accounts have one person behind them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC NullC points out that there's not really that large a number of non-latin-script usernames on en.wikipedia anyway, relative to the entire pool of usernames. Many new usernames are created for vandalism, I don't think we need a special case for this. Kim Bruning 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the assumption is that there could well be more in the future, with SUL. Or are you suggesting that any policy restricting username scripts is unnecessary? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Kim Bruning 12:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. After SUL everyones user contributions link will show there contributions for all wikis. So this will be an easy check when that is implemented. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While it can sound like a fine compromise at first, I don't think it works well. It still discriminates against people who want to use foreign scripts on this wiki. Consider a person who does so, do you really plan to block them just because they didn't have an account on another wiki under the same name? It is effectively saying that Japanese Wikipedians can use kanji names, but an English Wikipedian who is enamored of kanji would not be allowed to, and yet from the point of view of life on the English wikipedia there is no real difference between the two cases. If we allow foreign scripts, then we should allow foreign scripts. We should not create hurdles for their use on the basis of whether one class of users can be considered to legitimately have foreign names while others can not. According to Gmaxwell above, fewer than 8000 of the 3+ million usernames on en incorporate foriegn scripts. I don't see any need to create special rules for dealing with such a small "wave of vandalism". Dragons flight 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The reson this is a good compromise is because it is compatible with SUL. While you feel it unfair to en.WP users who want kanji, it does not break SUL for these editors. Script preference and SUL functionality are far from equally important issues IMHO. Please do reject a solution which is compatible with SUL over a more minor grievence. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider blocking foreign scripts to be discriminatory on its face. In my opinion, blocking good users with those names is always wrong. I am grateful that SUL has brought others to my side, but limiting solutions to those that only respond to SUL does not go far enough in my opinion. And saying that foreign users are okay, but not local users with foreign names is just another form of discrimination. Dragons flight 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The users are not blocked, the names are. With some characters, the software does not even allow the creation of the username in the first place. This policy discriminates between letters used in the English language and letters not used in the English language, for specific reasons related to the purpose of usernames and the smooth functioning of the English Wikipedia. For similar reason, "English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources"[7]. In this case, if someone is beginning a new username on the English Wikipedia, it is quite possible for them to create a name using English text. For similar reason, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states "Use English: No matter to whom you are addressing your comments, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments if possible or on request. If you cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a fluent third party to do so or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy." Usernames likewise should be comprehensible to the username at large, and if the use of another language is unavoidable as in the case of single-user login, the verification of that username is provided by the home wiki. None of this implies any ethnic prejudice beyond the prejudice that is already inherent in requiring that the English Wikipedia be written in the English language. All Wikimedia projects are segregated by language. —Centrx→talk • 11:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. As you noted, "with some characters, the software does not even allow the creation of the username in the first place." That's because there are technical issues that cause such characters to be problematic. If there were similarly significant concerns regarding these non-Latin characters, they would be blocked here too. As Dragons flight noted, the reasons expressed thus far pertain to minor inconveniences. To address these specifically:

2. That some people's software is technically deficient is not a valid reason to prohibit others from using their real names as their usernames. It's easy enough to update or replace one's browser to properly display non-Latin characters.

3. People have cited these characters' lack of recognizability, and I'm waiting for someone to explain why it's so important for every username to be instantly understandable. (To imply that this is comparable to the need for articles and talk page messages to be written in English is silly.) We have over three million registered accounts, and you aren't going to remember all of them. (When you've seen dozens of usernames along the lines of "CoolDude64," they're no more memorable than they would be if they were written with non-Latin characters.) Furthermore, the new recommendation (which should not be a requirement) to transliterate non-Latin usernames in the signatures is a viable alternative to transliterating them prior to registration.

4. Finally, you noted that "if someone is beginning a new username on the English Wikipedia, it is quite possible for them to create a name using English text." Yes, and it also is "quite possible" to demand that anyone with a "foreign" name select something easier for English-speakers to read and pronounce (perhaps "Toby"). This probably would please some individuals, but that doesn't make it right. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Until recently, "@" was allowed by the software. It was not technically necessary to disable it; it was disabled to force users not to use e-mail addresses as usernames, which was forbidden by the username policy such as to prevent spam for unwitting users. While developers can force certain policy issues, or change them on request, they do not however mandate policy. Preventing "@" does prevent users from making a legitimate choice about their usernames.

2-3. The ability of others to recognize, remember, and type in usernames is the fundamental purpose of usernames. There may be several "CoolDude" with numbers, but there are actually few "CoolDude"'s, and if any one of them is established, new usernames with different numbers would be banned under this policy, just as a "David Levy1" would be banned as being too similar to an existing user. This policy, too, prevents people from using their chosen names, even their real names, but it is appropriate to prevent accidental or intentional impersonation, if the identifiable part of the username (in this case, not the numbers) is the same. There are other people named "David Levy" who cannot use their real names on Wikipedia just because you were first. I don't see why forcing someone to transliterate "Toby" in his signature rather than his username would be any more righteous.

4. If a user has a transliteration in the signature, why can they not use that transliteration in the username, instead of "Toby"? Forcing transliteration in signatures is requiring users to "select something easier for English-speakers to read and pronounce". The username policy only requires that a name consist of phonemes or simple patterns, not that they must be made of English words. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Until recently, "@" was allowed by the software. It was not technically necessary to disable it; it was disabled to force users not to use e-mail addresses as usernames, which was forbidden by the username policy such as to prevent spam for unwitting users. While developers can force certain policy issues, or change them on request, they do not however mandate policy. Preventing "@" does prevent users from making a legitimate choice about their usernames.

1. I was unable to find the quote, but I distinctly remember a developer commenting that the use of the "@" symbol in usernames has resulted in some technical issues. Note that the similar "＠" symbol remains a valid character in new usernames.

2. The prohibition of the "@" symbol in usernames affects all new users equally. That isn't remotely the same as a policy that would discriminate against people based upon the characters used to spell their real names.

3. Actually, developers can mandate policy under certain circumstances. Quoting Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, policy can be created as the result of "declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load."

The ability of others to recognize, remember, and type in usernames is the fundamental purpose of usernames.

I address this in one of my other replies to you.

There may be several "CoolDude" with numbers, but there are actually few "CoolDude"'s, and if any one of them is established, new usernames with different numbers would be banned under this policy, just as a "David Levy1" would be banned as being too similar to an existing user. This policy, too, prevents people from using their chosen names, even their real names, but it is appropriate to prevent accidental or intentional impersonation, if the identifiable part of the username (in this case, not the numbers) is the same. There are other people named "David Levy" who cannot use their real names on Wikipedia just because you were first.

1. I disagree with your interpretation of the username policy. It requests that people using their real names "please add a middle name or initial or some other way of distinguishing between [them] and the existing contributor," and I fail to see how appending a numeral fails to qualify. Another David Levy registered the username DavidMLevy (adding a middle initial), explained on his user page that he wasn't me, and kindly e-mailed me to say hello. I see no likelihood of confusion (even if he were to begin editing regularly), and I sincerely hope that no one blocks him.

2. The policy is less lenient when it comes to pseudonyms. Right or wrong, this does not discriminate on the basis of nationality.

3. As noted by Dragons flight, transliteration from some scripts to the Latin alphabet causes multiple names to appear identical. This actually reduces the number of available usernames (because people with different names suddenly have the same name).

I don't see why forcing someone to transliterate "Toby" in his signature rather than his username would be any more righteous.

...which is why I plainly stated that this "should not be a requirement."

If a user has a transliteration in the signature, why can they not use that transliteration in the username,

They can (if they so desire). Who said that they couldn't?

instead of "Toby"?

You do realize that my "Toby" reference was part of a hypothetical scenario...don't you?

Forcing transliteration in signatures is requiring users to "select something easier for English-speakers to read and pronounce".

Of course, I expressed my opinion that this "should not be a requirement." If someone wishes to do that (or to transliterate his/her name for the username), he/she is welcome to. —David Levy 04:55/21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation can mandate certain policies, but such a mandate must be based on reason, which is open for anyone to discuss; and the absence of a software-level technical requirement for a certain kind of username is not equivalent to a Foundation mandate.

1. I don't see why someone should be prohibited from using his real name just because a celebrity has the same name. Anyway, we could allow same names and all manner of things if user accounts were only identified by numbers. That would have problems exactly in identifying and remembering usernames, but it would not mean that I am a number.

2. Disallowing untypable and unrememberable characters discriminates on the basis of the characters used in the name of the registered user account. That is all.

3. All of the username policies reduce the number of available usernames.

If there is no transliterated name at all, what do you think the purpose of a username is? I realize that "Toby" was an example intended to illustrate some sort of ethnic bias in requiring foreigners to using English given names, but no one is suggesting that. Further correspondence should probably be in a new section, and this numbering system is not working correctly. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation can mandate certain policies, but such a mandate must be based on reason, which is open for anyone to discuss; and the absence of a software-level technical requirement for a certain kind of username is not equivalent to a Foundation mandate.

I didn't claim otherwise. I noted that it would be very easy to automatically bar the creation of such usernames here if there were a need and consensus.

I don't see why someone should be prohibited from using his real name just because a celebrity has the same name.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. It isn't really fair, but I see the potential for disruption. I disagree with your assertion that non-Latin usernames are significantly problematic.

Anyway, we could allow same names and all manner of things if user accounts were only identified by numbers. That would have problems exactly in identifying and remembering usernames, but it would not mean that I am a number.

What's your point?

Disallowing untypable and unrememberable characters discriminates on the basis of the characters used in the name of the registered user account. That is all.

I'm not implying that the intent is to discriminate against people from certain cultures, but that's the end result.

All of the username policies reduce the number of available usernames.

There are legitimate reasons to impose restrictions. I'm arguing that this isn't one of them.

If there is no transliterated name at all, what do you think the purpose of a username is?

Usernames serve as unique visual representations of individual users, regardless of whether you're able to read them. You are capable of clicking on links and copying/pasting, no?

I realize that "Toby" was an example intended to illustrate some sort of ethnic bias in requiring foreigners to using English given names, but no one is suggesting that.

The entire scenario was hypothetical. If we're to require transliteration to Latin characters, why stop there? The resultant usernames still will be difficult for most native English readers to comprehend, so why not go a step further by requiring the use of names that we can fully understand?

Further correspondence should probably be in a new section, and this numbering system is not working correctly.

I experienced no problems until you just removed my most recent reply and reverted one that I simultaneously edited. Please be more careful. —David Levy 22:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You refer to this as a "solution," but I've seen no evidence of a problem. —David Levy 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that single-user login will lead to usernames on the English Wikipedia that otherwise violate the username policy. —Centrx→talk • 11:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

...except, of course, for the fact that the username policy does not prohibit the use of non-Latin characters in usernames. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Just because no one is edit warring over a bogus removal of text from the page does not mean that the change is suddenly valid. The removal is contested and was also clearly hasty as it does not even discourage the use of non-latin characters or explains the reasons for not using them, advice which has been in the username policy since these names started showing up more in March, and which remains in, for example, the French and Italian Wikipedia username policy. —Centrx→talk • 02:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please direct my attention to a past version of the policy that explicitly prohibited usernames containing non-Latin characters. Prior to the recent edits, it merely asked users to "please consider transliterating" their names. —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was under "inappropriate usernames" and users were regularly blocked for it. It is as "inappropriate" as many of the other items listed there and for which users are blocked. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It was in that section, but the text itself did not jibe with this placement or with the claim that usernames containing non-Latin characters were prohibited. It clearly read as a mere recommendation, just as the current text does.

2. I've seen sysops block users for various nonexistent offenses. —David Levy 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you did edit war over it. The fact remains that the policy is not amended by simply removing the text, and that there are many good reasons for not having these usernames that are not addressed by referring to "human rights" nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I edit warred? I merely relocated existing text to a different section of the page (as discussed on this talk page). You call that "edit warring"? Or are you lumping together everyone who disagrees with you? —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not thee specifically. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, could the problem really be more that admins are just blocking these on sight even if they might be valid, instead of trying to engage the user in discussion? It seems to me that discouraging blocking on-sight overall might be an alternate solution to this problem, instead of attempting to add specific conditions on when people can have such a username. JYolkowski // talk 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand, Sam, that you wish to prohibit people whose names are spelled with non-Latin characters from using said names at the English Wikipedia unless they can prove that they've edited another Wikimedia wiki in a different language (as though that's some sort of prerequisite)? Last I checked, there was no rule against contributing exclusively in a non-primary language. —David Levy 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why users should come to the English-language Wikipedia and have a username in a foreign script that's unreadable to the majority of users, not only from a technical viewpoint (not having fonts installed) but from a linguistic viewpoint (I can't read Thai script, for example). Especially with the imminent implementation on SUL, there is an obvious exception to be made for those who already use a foreign script on a different wiki for consistency's sake. But, in general, I think it's preferable that users have usernames that are readable by the vast majority of other users on the wiki and I see no reason why our policy should not encourage this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam, why should someone be prevented from using their real name just because you are unwilling to try to read it? There are many examples in languages like Chinese and Arabic where there is no way to tranliterate a name without corrupting it. For example, in Chinese there are multiple names (written with different symbols) that would all be written Yin by English speakers. The Wikipedia software has the capacity to allow such a person to use their real name (expressed by the proper symbols), but instead you are advocating policy that would lump all such people in a box called Yin, which is an anglocentric corruption of their true identity. I consider the right of self-identification to be a basic human right. Since Wikipedia supports the ability to self-identify in their own language, I strongly believe that allowing them to do so trumps the minor inconveniences that it might render upon you and others. Dragons flight 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Names, by their essence, are for communicating with others. Other than that, they are simply symbols assigned by parents before the named person exists. Names are not personal identity. Anyway, what if I want to "self-identify" as "⊾⦇♣⠭⊇". I think that's a great name, and people do want to express themselves in their usernames, whether by using symbols or by calling themselves "Buddha is the One" or "Penis Doctor". Do you think that these and the endless variety of other usernames that do allow legitimate self-expression should also be allowed? Someone can "self-identify" all the want, but on Wikipedia the usernames are used for identification by others and for communication with others. Wikipedia is not an avenue for a spiritual quest; its policies are conducive to the creation and operation of the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"conducive to the creation and operation of the encyclopedia" - such as by encouraging participation by those from outside the the anglocentric world? Dragons flight 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to come to the English Wikipedia, spurning the Wikipedia in their own language, and expect to use a name in their own foreign script? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A. Many Wikipedias contain very few articles.

B. Many people feel comfortable editing pre-existing articles on familiar subjects, but don't feel comfortable writing new ones (especially in the beginning).

C. The English-language Wikipedia is the largest, and many people learn English as a non-primary language.

Does that answer your question? —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Me. By sheer chance, my name is written in latin script anyway (phew). But what if I had been Indian or Korean? Kim Bruning 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison of the desire to use one's real name with the desire to use a random assortment of characters, religious proclamation, or phrase widely perceived as offensive is patently absurd. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor inconvenience? You mean that I can't read it at all? In any case, users don't have to use their real names. For many months, my username was Smoddy. I'm fairly confident your real name isn't "Dragons flight"... I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that users (who don't want to edit the projects in their own language...) transliterate their names or make up new names. They can always put their real name on their userpage. Yes, MediaWiki has the capacity to do this. But MediaWiki also has the capacity to allow admins to go around arbitrarily blocking people, but we don't allow them to do it. Just that the software allows it does not mean we should allow users to choose any unreadable name. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your being unable to read them is a minor inconvience. It is a problem that will rarely affect you, which you can work around, and which is in the power of nearly all Wikipedians to remedy. Simply switching to recent versions of Firefox, for example, will pick up many foriegn scripts. Dragons flight 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But I still won't be able to read it. สนามบินสุวรรณภูมิ is much the same to me as ในช่วงถนนบางนา – both are completely illegible, just as much as ???????????????? is.

Please could you formulate the policy as you would have it, so I know what your position is? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor inconvenience? You mean that I can't read it at all?

Yes, Dragons flight is correct in stating that this is a minor inconvenience. Why is it crucial for you to be able to instantly recognize everyone's username?

In any case, users don't have to use their real names.

No, but we're allowed to if we so desire. You want to strip certain users of this right because it inconveniences you.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that users (who don't want to edit the projects in their own language...) transliterate their names or make up new names.

I, conversely, feel that it is unreasonable, and I believe that your proposed prerequisite (which reflects neither common sense nor any pre-existing policy) is ethnocentric, unfairly discriminatory and downright un-wiki.

Yes, MediaWiki has the capacity to do this. But MediaWiki also has the capacity to allow admins to go around arbitrarily blocking people, but we don't allow them to do it. Just that the software allows it does not mean we should allow users to choose any unreadable name.

That's a ludicrous analogy. MediaWiki has no means of detecting illegitimate blocks. If there were a compelling reason to bar the creation of usernames containing non-Latin characters, this easily could be implemented at the software level. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Usernames are for identifying and communication with users. If usernames are not identifiable to editors of the English Wikipedia, the username defeats that purpose. I and almost any editor of the English Wikipedia can remember and type in your username. Most editors of the English Wikipedia cannot recognize, remember, or type in non-latin usernames, just as they cannot remember or easily type in usernamesl like "kalsjdfjsdkfj" which area also not allowed. There is no right to self-expression in one's username if it conflicts with the primary purpose of usernames. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We have over three million registered accounts. Can you "remember" all of these names?

Again, you're describing a minor inconvenience. It's perfectly easy to follow links to editors' user pages, talk pages, contribution histories, et cetera. It's perfectly easy to copy/paste a username when you want to reference someone by name. (I routinely do this anyway, as it's the best way to avoid making a mistake.) There is no urgent need to instantly recognize every username, nor is there any realistic means of accomplishing this. —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Heya Sam!

Let's try s/english/japanese/g; : I can't see why users should come to the Japanese-language Wikipedia and have a username in a foreign script that's unreadable to the majority of users, not only from a technical viewpoint (not having fonts installed) but from a linguistic viewpoint (some people can't read Latin script, for example).

Eek. No way!

We're just going to have to learn to read some more kinds of letters. Ignorance, after all, is not an excuse. :-). -- キミ Bruning 00:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Hmmm, easier than it looks

Am I required to get a new keyboard too? Am I supposed to recognize and remember all the phonemes in at least five different kinds of script? What person is so enamored with English that he demands an English name on the Japanese Wikipedia, yet has never edited on the English Wikipedia? —Centrx→talk • 10:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no new keyboard, no need to memorise multiple scripts. And why make a baroque and complex rule, requiring much work on checking and enforcement, as opposed to just a simple "Hi, welcome to wikipedia", like we always used to do before? :-) كم Bruning 19:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC) and if you're curious... :-)

OK, let's enforce it nicely. As in, ask. We can do that, and if admins refuse, well, that's a) uncivil and b) biting the newbies. It's perfectly possible to have a policy where we insist that people are treated nicely. Incidentally, Kim, your (ironic) comment implies that the only ways to deal with this problem are a) the baroque and complex rule or b) the new keyboard. Actually, this is the truth. However, we're trying to find a middle ground, trying to restrict the issues and simultaneously to welcome users from other wikis. It really isn't unreasonable to ask that we be able to read a user's username. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You hadn't noticed me signing with a new and different script every time? While it'd be fun to trick you into thinking I had this huge pile of keyboards scattered around the room, the truth is, actually I just have 1 ;-)

That, and what is the actual problem you're trying to solve with this specific policy proposal? 김 Bruning 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) for those who are curious

The problem is to accommodate single-user login and so that the same person on different Wikipedias can use the same username. —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that we have no policy prohibiting the use of non-Latin characters in usernames, what's the "problem"? —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, ignorance is not an excuse. I think users can do us the courtesy of writing their names in a script we can read without going to significant effort. I know I'll never be able to read Thai script or any Japanese script – they're just too complicated. I don't blame any Japanese user who is unable to learn Latin script, and I think your adaptation of my words for the Japanese Wikipedia is absolutely reasonable, if the ja community wished it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible for users to "do us the courtesy of writing their names in a script we can read without going to significant effort." It's even okay for us to encourage this. To require it is to deprive these individuals of a basic right extended to all other users. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How is editing Wikipedia under a name of one's choosing a "basic right"? —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't what I wrote. Firstly, I said nothing about "editing Wikipedia under a name of one's choosing." You know that I'm referring to people's real names (not to whatever names they please). Secondly, quoting "basic right" out of context makes it seem as though I'm referring to human rights (which I obviously am not). As is evident from the remainder of my sentence (which you didn't quote), I'm writing in the context of Wikipedia. —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to propose this very same thing. —Centrx→talk • 10:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Extremely Long User Names"

How long is "inappropriate"? Just H 23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have one in mind? If so, my suggestion would be to establish precedent at WP:RFC/NAME and then document that precedent here. JYolkowski // talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

PNG rendering of non-latin usernames

I don't intend to add heat to the fire. But, if it ends up that we do continue to allow users to create usernames and have them automatically created via SUL, why not have a default setting which renders any non-latin characters as a PNG image? Wikipedians (not anons) who want to change this setting can do so in their preferences, just like they can change the format of math rendering. There could be a top-right notice on every page that uses the PNG rendering, saying something like, "Why can't I copy this text?"...or not, but some notice that would direct anons and Wikipedians alike to a new manual of style page. Of course, the PNG renderer would have to be a new extension or addition, but I can't imagine that it would be too difficult.

Then we could keep the suggestion that Wikipedians with non-latin usernames transliterate their names in their sigs and create a redirect to their user page. --Iamunknown 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

God

Ok, since no religion really owns the word God(and please correct me if I am wrong), why should it be protected? This is not a word made up by a specific group for their deity alone(and again please correct me if I am wrong) so why cannot people use it in their name?

Don't get me wrong, I think words such as Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc... should be forbidden because there are specific groups who believe in these beings. But the root of the word God is unknown, and it's meaning is varied amongst numerous groups, so which group are we protecting by not allowing this word?

I may be missing the whole point of the username policy, so I welcome other opinions. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In the English speaking world, God (with capital g) is preferentially associated with the Judeo-Christian God, so I don't really think your opening point is accurate. To the degree it is also generalized across faiths just means that there are more people to get offended, not less. Also, following your logic, one might as well ask why do we protect Allah since that is just the Arabic word for God. (A Christian praying in Arabic would say "Allah" to mean the Judeo-Christian God.) No, I generally think it is better stay away from usernames that suggest the user is taking on the identity of an object or being of worship. However, I would have no problem with clearly made up associations (e.g. User:God of Yellow Sticky Notes). Dragons flight 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I tend disagree. Numerous sources outside the Jedeo-Christian culture use the term god for their own meaning, regardless of capitalization. I looked around trying to find an official meaning, and it seems that it does not refer to a specific deity, but more the idea of a deity[8].

You bring up an excellent point with made up associations, the word clearly has a greater meaning than JC culture holds it to. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem really is that, in English, the capitalized form of God is used to refer to a specific deity, denoting the concept of "the God" rather than that of "a god". Because of our technical restrictions on article names, any user whose name begins with god will be in violation of the rule, but I think that a username like User:Thunder god would clearly be using the term in the generic sense and permissible. I know we have 2 or 3 users named "death god", referring to the concept of Shinigami, and they have not received any complaints. --tjstrf talk 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my point, it is not so clear cut as the letter of the policy would lead you to believe. User:Nintendo God is okay, but User:Your God is not... What about User:There is no god. Or User:ThankGodForBackspace or User:Godsmack.

I think that the word God could be taken off the list of directly prohibited terms, perhaps to be replaced by something referring to the unclear distinction being drawn now. I have been disagreed with twice, yet both people have provided an example of an acceptable use. This makes me think. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that a username containing God is a bit unrequired; for example, why should one create a username that might be considered "dodgy"? To an extent, I believe usernames containing the word 'god' are okay, but not 'God'. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV; usernames like that are obviously going to offend some people, regardless of the religous group. Yuser31415 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "God" is a title, while "Jesus" and "Jehovah" are personal names for hypothetical entities to which that title might be applied, rather like "Her Majesty" versus "Elizabeth Windsor II". JRSpriggs 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Windsor II" is more like "Jesus of Nazareth". Elizabeth, on the other hand, is a popular given name. So is Jesus. And let's not forget Mary and Joseph. Or Mohammed for that matter. Not that the latter are considered divine, but they are religious figures, which is what the rule forbids.

Why are we trying to draw sharp lines based on what we think people might do and who we think ought or ought not to be offended as a result? As far as I can tell this line was introduced here. So rather than trying to distinguish between God and Jesus, how about we just trash the whole line? Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. This general rule ought to be good enough until it is shown that there really is a need to outline specific cases. 192.75.48.150 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Admitting my bias as a non-Christian, I'd say that a blanket prohibition on "*[Gg]od*" in usernames is overkill. Anything actually abusive/presumptive can be dealt with on a case by case basis, while freeing up silly things like User:God of War or User:Nintendo God. -- nae'blis 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The banning of usernames including the word "God" is completely asinine. It offends me that that would be considered offensive and that we consider it our job to make sure no one on Wikipedia is ever offended. But wait a minute, if we're banning "God" to make sure people aren't offended, what about people who are offended by it being banned? Are the sensibilities of people who value free expression (and even a bit of levity every once in a while) less important that the sensibilities of those who are deeply religious? If so, why? Kaldari 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is not, nor should there ever be a blanket ban on including G/god in usernames, just a ban on using it and other religous terms alone, which I think is fair, heads off potential inter-user problems and certainly does not prevent us from building an encyclopedia. The case-by-case consensus basis at WP:RFCN on potentially controversial names, including compound words including G/god works just fine. Deizio talk 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Number the criteria for quick reference

I've raised this at WP:VPP, and I think it wouuld be a good idea to bring here. The criteria for blocking a username should be numbered/marked like those for speedy deletion, and blocks for username policy violation should be required to include a reference to the specific part of the criteria that prohibits them. Being forced to pick a specific criteria from the list will also cut down on illegitimate blocks, which are a major problem and could easily drive off good contributors who happened to make a silly choice of name. Deletion of pages on a whim is generally frowned upon, but some username blocks right now seem rather arbitrary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I totally disagree with the statement, "Being forced to pick a specific criteria from the list will also cut down on illegitimate blocks, which are a major problem and could easily drive off good contributors who happened to make a silly choice of name." That assumes facts not in evidence. No one has shown any evidence that we are driving off good contributors. To the contrary, I think it is clear that anyone too-thin-skinned to choose a new username will probably not make a good contributor. At the same time, I support the proposal to number the list of username criteria. It won't hurt, and it may be helpful. Johntex\^talk 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If a user's first experience on stepping through the door is a seemingly arbitrary and unfounded block, that's not going to leave a good impression, and VPP has a post up right now about people being blocked improperly. The policy itself says that good faith name choices shouldn't be blocked for the very reason of not wanting to drive off good contributors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I realize there is a VPP post. That is why we both came here, isn't it? An anecdotal claim that someone what driven off does not mean it is a recurring problem. The fact that someone left (even if proven) over the username does not prove they would have been a good contributor. As I said, I'm fine with numbering the requirements, but all web sites have restrictions on usernames. People coming here need to be able to accept that or they will likely not be good contributors. A good contributor would be more likely to say "Hmmm...I wonder why that one didn't work? Oh well, let me try..." Johntex\^talk 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Since the discussion at WP:VPP is much more extensive (I think that's a mistake - the discussion should have been here, given that VPP isn't archived (permanently) and this page is, but whatever ... ), I recommend any further comments be there rather than here. John Broughton | Talk 15:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal

From the policy: Names that promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime).

I can understand violence, but the illegal part seems very strange to me. Given the international view of Wikipedia, this results in a lot of laws. Which countries laws are we following? If we follow all of them then this is a very restrictive rule indeed. I seems in practice this is interpreted as Illegal in North America.

I put forth the idea that the idea that illegal actions in a name not be specifically restricted. Alcohol is illegal in several countries, beef in another. Should a name that refers to free elections be blocked because free elections are illegal in some country? Laws are just too varying and often created through less than altruistic motives. Any thoughts? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume it meant illegal in Florida, like everything else where we refer to illegal actions. --tjstrf talk 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal in Florida? Wikipedia does respect US laws over others in matters of copyright due to the necessity of the servers being there. This restriction on usernames is not for the legal protection of Wikipedia, but simply our own policy. Thus, in this case, we should not limit ourselves to the legal interpretation of one country. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion grew out of a discussion at WP:RFCN, where I voted "disallow" on a username that could be interpreted as promoting the illegal use of a drug that is restricted at least U.S., applying the section of the policy cited above.

Now having said that, I agree with HighInBC that we should re-evaluate that line for the reasons he cited. As a starting point, perhaps we could discuss changing the line to Names that promote or refer to violent real-world actions or organizations. This would cover terrorism, organized crime, street gangs, etc., which I think most Wikipedians would agree are inappropriate in usernames. Another issue to consider: should names referring to martial arts (e.g. User:Karate Master) be restricted as well? --Ginkgo100^talk 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your "starting point" suggestion also covers legal forms of real-world violence, such as those practiced by the police, the military, and other state apparatus. It's also vague enough to cover many widely practiced (and widely accepted) forms of violence against non-human animals, such as butchery. Do you propose to ban usernames which indicate or imply that the user supports or is a member of a country's police or armed forces? How about usernames which indicate or imply that the user supports or practices vivisection? meat processing? animal husbandry? —Psychonaut 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Names that promote or refer to violent real-world actions is plenty fine. As for any ambiguity, it can be solved via WP:RFCN like all the rest of the ambiguity in this policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been bold and changed it, if you disagree revert and discuss. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Potentially inflammatory vs. inflammatory

I reverted an undiscussed change from "potentially inflammatory username" to "inflammatory username" by Kaldari (talk · contribs), there is no need for users to adopt a "potentially inflammatory" username, indeed a username is not inflammatory until it offends someone, but we do not and should not allow a user to call themselves User:N*****c**t and wait until someone objects. Self-expression is fine, but there is no reason to give yourself a potentially inflammatory name to identify yourself while building an encyclopedia, and we should be firm in asserting this. Deizio talk 08:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the name User:Nonfascist? Simply stating in your username that you are not a fascist is somehow inflammatory and should be disallowed? Shall we also disallow User:Nonracist to avoid hurting the feelings of all the racists who visit Wikipedia? —Psychonaut 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Such questions are handled at WP:RFCN. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that every word in the English language is "potentially inflammatory"? "Jewhater" is inflammatory. "Nonfascist" is potentially inflammatory. We should ban the former, not the later. Kaldari 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)